The Government Shutdown (or Why We Will Never Get Out Of This Mess...)

1. I don't think David insinuated that at all.
2. The use of the word "homo" in the context in which you used it could be demeaning to certain individuals. It's a slur against a person's sexual orientation and is quite inappropriate to use.

 

I thought David was talking about Ann Coulter.

 

It's good to see tomc has re-joined us.

 

....oh yeah, dr moen...I see you are dodging the question posed in the other thread regarding what you said (but claimed you didn't say) about socialist Bernie Sanders? The proof is a couple of days old & you have been active....trying to figure out how to respond?

 

If that's what you take away from my post, so be it.

 

No that is just crazy. So instead they are going to make us suffer. Why not just meet halfway instead of shutting everything down?

 

So you would support a bill to pay the military if it had riders to allow for late term abortion and triple the amount one receives from welfare? You would support that kind of bill? It's a simple yes of no question. And I know simple.

 

you want me to condem the reps they spend too much money and did not hold out for nuff cuts but then they only have blocking powers since they only have control of 1/3 the house senate presidency yep i am physicaly cabaple of disagreeing with the right the left did it first this bill had a duedate of 10/1/10 (american dating) we have in essence been driving without insurance ever since the dips had an accident now they are blaming someone else typical left logic

 

I wasn't demeaning you. You obviously took it the wrong way. But I guess I should've used gay, if I knew the other word made you upset.

 

My friend, you could call me every name in the book and it wouldn't upset me. I assume we have some members here who might be upset by a derogatory term such as that. I was merely trying to make you aware of that fact.

 

My friend! Now you're getting nasty. Perhaps you can explain what David meant. If he meant it in a complementary manner, then you can explain how. I you were to be, indeed "my friend".

 

It's not paying them that is an issue for me. it's the not paying them that I have a problem with.

 

So then why don't you have an issue with the Repubs for not just writing a bill that only specifies for military pay roll? And besides the military only gets paid once a month. March's came and went. There's 22 days before that problem arises. Even if its twice a month it leaves a week to work it out. Then you can root for our boys in the trenches.

 

I am sure not.

And no one would be foolish enough to really think that a bill funding the troops wouldn't pass easily if it was honestly that and not a political ploy filled with other stuff. But, it makes a good talking point. And these days that is more important than things like whether real people actually get paid.

 

Please re-read what I posted earlier.

 

If the troops are not paid by their commander-in-chief, -- are they then his slaves? What would you call it? If Obama does not sign the bill to pay his troops, then it sounds sort of like forced labor to me.

It's one thing to be forced to pick cotton, but to be forced to risk your life overseas without being paid, would be the worst kind of forced labor. How can the president of the United States, threaten to withhold payment to Americans who not only risk their lives for their country but are required by law to serve or face court-martial after they volunteered?

Jesse Jackson says the government shutdown would be a return to the Civil War. Maybe he has something there! We hear the Obamamedia compare Obama to Lincoln—but it sounds like he has more in common with Jefferson Davis than he does with Lincoln.

 

Yeah, it's comical that news organizations and the American public are taking these clowns seriously. At this rate, the country won't make it another 100 years. In 100 years or (likely) less we WILL owe OVER 100 trillion or 100,000,000,000,000. Eventually the interest due at the end of the year exceeds all tax receipts. (If it even has to get that far.) Game over. Cue the PacMan death sound effect.

 

It won't take 100 years for the end game. I have read that between 2030 and 2040, Mandatory Spending - Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Interest - will exceed total government revenues. That means we would have to borrow for everything else the government does. Including defense. At that point, yearly deficits would be over the 3 trillion (in today's dollars) range, I would guess. And those dates have probably accelerated if anything.

 

You now have assurances that John Boehner won't be responsible for Harry Reid wife and daughter's death. The reps have capitulated.

 

I never said I could explain what David meant. I said that I didn't think he insinuated what you claimed he did. It was my interpretation, but you can interpret it anyway you want. If you want to know what David "meant" by his remark, you'll have to ask him.